The disciplinary commission of the IOC, Oswald Commission, after the hearing on Monday 30 October 2017, the two Russian cross-country skiers Alexander Legkov and Evgeniy Belov found guilty of having committed an anti doping rule Violation at the Olympic Games Sochi 2014 Have. The results of both are to be annulled, they should not be allowed to participate in future Olympic Games. This does not includes a ban for the regular FIS competitions.
With the decision, the IOC goes far beyond the findings provided by the McLaren report without further investigation and without further evidence, and opposes the already existing decision of CAS/TAS in the same case. The decision deserves the term scandal. She mocks the declaration of the President of the IOC, Dr. Thomas Bach, to decide only on the basis of secure evidence.
The athletes will appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the latest tomorrow. If the procedure will be still pending at the date of the start of the Olympic Games 2018 and it will be not possible to postpone the games by request for provisional measures delay, the results may have to be cancelled retrospectively.
IP McLaren writes himself:
- The reason these athlete samples needed to be swapped is because they had likely been authorised to use the cocktail up to and even during the Games. were probably entitledTo use the cocktail.
- Dr. Rodtschenkows statement is that Most protected athletes were In doping programmes, but not all of them. Nevertheless, in his opinion, all the samples would be automatically swapped.
- Rodchenkov further stated that he too had his suspicion only from the narratives of other persons, he himself had no special memory.
That means neither Prof. McLaren nor Dr. Rodchenkow himself claim
- That all athletes whose rehearsals are to be manipulated may have actually used doping or have benefited from the manipulation,
- That you can identify individual athletes safely
- Or that all athletes have made use of the permit, which they have only probably received – but not certain.
Prof. McLaren also did not leave his line on the IOC’s explicit demand, which deserves great respect. He did not burden individual athletes.
That requires mandatory , even in the view of the Court of Arbitration for Sport CAS/TAS, requires proof of individual fault or only participation beyond the McLaren report. The CAS was convinced that the evidence in this case would not suffice for a sanction. The IOC gets over it.
Denis Oswald still stated at the last summit of the IOC that his investigations would go far beyond those of Prof. Richard McLaren. Well that’s actually not the case. The investigation has only been limited to obtaining a new forensic opinion. Despite the early demand for defence throughout the year, the Commission did not make any further inquiries, did not interrogate witnesses and did not carry out DNA analyses. The lack of knowledge of the documents made available by Prof McLaren was appalling in hearing. A will to real enlightenment is not identifiable.
Prof. Christophe Champod has explained in detail his forensic opinion at the hearing with a great deal of expertise. His method is not questioned by the defense.
The opinion has shown that Of 41 examined sample bottles of athletesMentioned on the Duchess list or the medal by day list Only 9 bottles, so 22% of the strong suspicion That they have been tampered with. The other “marks” are of unknown origin or are safe to be assigned to production or normal use. The assumption of a logical connection between the mention on one of the two lists and a manipulation of the bottles is therefore not scientifically tenable.
In one of the two athletes, the analysis has suspected the manipulation On none of his bottles Confirmed. Nevertheless, he was convicted.
The other athlete suspects only one of three samples, which is contrary to the previous accusation.
In the case of an athlete who is not directly involved in the procedure (i.e. not known), the analysis has shown that the a sample has been tested positively for doping, the B sample has signs of manipulation. This is an unexplainable result, but it clearly contradicts the previous suspicion.
Prof. McLaren’s studies have already shown that, in the case of a total of 30% of the samples examined by him, the contents of the manipulated samples did not come from the athletes who gave the sample. As a result, he has already advised the associations to conduct DNA analysis to identity the samples. The defence also supports this. The disciplinary commission has ignored this. DNA analysis does not exist.
Therefore, there is no physical evidence today that the samples of the athletes have actually been manipulated, nor is it certain that the urine in the bottles came from them and not – without their knowledge – was exchanged by urine from an unknown person.
So there is neither Prof. McLaren’s assertion nor proof that individual athletes have really participated in the system that has undoubtedly existed. However, if a single athlete is to be punished without any reasonable evidence, then this only shows that the IOC has sought out the supposedly weakest opponents, the athletes, in order to “finally” comply with the worldwide demand for sanctions.
However, there is clear evidence that the IOC has violated its obligations to all athletes and participants in the Olympic Games Sochi 2014.
The IOC, in particular the Medical Commission, under whose responsibility Dr. Rodchenkov has worked, is exclusively responsible for the proper storage and treatment of the samples. Prof. Mc Laren has published in EDP1157 and EDP 1157_T also the email of Darya Pishchalnikova of 23 December 2012, with which she informed the WADA, the IAAF and also the president of the IOC in detail that Dr. Rodchenkov in Moscow a sophisticated system of Corruption and the concealment of doping.
With this knowledge of the IOC, Dr. Rodchenkov was nevertheless director of the Anti-doping laboratory in Sochi under the responsibility of the IOC. The IOC obviously wants to distract from this responsibility.
The presumption of innocence and the right to a state-owned procedure protects people worldwide from the consequences of arbitrary treatment, whether by a state or by another body. This also means that no one can be convicted without evidence and that no judgment may be given on the information of persons who cannot be questioned by the defendant or the court itself. The IOC believes that it is not necessary to apply these achievements of modern rule of law, and is shifting its own responsibility to other courts that will come after him.